The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

IJOA
26,5 Pathways to workplace innovation
and career satisfaction in the
public service
890 The role of leadership and culture
Received 6 March 2018 Warit Wipulanusat
Revised 7 June 2018
Accepted 12 June 2018
School of Engineering and Built Environment,
Griffith University – Gold Coast Campus, Southport, Australia
Kriengsak Panuwatwanich
School of Civil Engineering and Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute
of Technology, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand, and
Rodney Anthony Stewart
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University,
Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study the influence of two climates for innovation constructs,
namely, leadership and organisational culture, on workplace innovation and career satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – This study used structural equation modelling to test the data from
3,125 engineering professionals in the Australian Public Service (APS).
Findings – The structural model indicated that leadership for innovation and ambidextrous culture for
innovation influenced workplace innovation which, in turn, improved career satisfaction. Moreover,
modelling revealed a significant relationship between ambidextrous culture for innovation and career
satisfaction. This study also investigated mediation effects and revealed both simple and sequential
mediation paths in the model. It was found that improving workplace innovation and career satisfaction
through recognition of an engineer’s contribution to their agency would assist in retaining and advancing in-
house engineering expertise.
Practical implications – The structural model could be used to address current shortages of engineering
professionals in the Commonwealth of Australia departments. The findings emphasise the importance of
Commonwealth departments providing opportunities for their engineers to engage in creative and innovative
projects which enhance their professional career.
Originality/value – This study fills the gap in the innovation literature by exploring the relationships
through which socio-psychological factors affect workplace innovation and career satisfaction on the
innovation process for engineering professionals in the APS.
Keywords Public sector, Innovation, Career satisfaction, Leadership, Engineers,
Structural equation modelling
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
Introduction
Vol. 26 No. 5, 2018
pp. 890-914
Innovation is essential for improving efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector and to
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
find solutions to the increasing demands of society for better services. Public agencies have
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-03-2018-1376 become significant players in the adoption, invention and implementation of innovations
(Borins, 2006). In the public sector context, innovation is defined as a learning process in Pathways to
which governments attempt to meet specific societal challenges, which can be solved by workplace
developing new services, technologies, organisational structures, management approaches,
governance processes and policy concepts (Bekkers et al., 2011). An awareness of the
innovation
importance of public sector innovation has led many researchers to study the relationship
between organisational attributes and an organisation’s propensity to innovate (Damanpour
and Schneider, 2009; Fernandez and Pitts, 2011; Kim and Yoon, 2015). This study examines
these relationships to provide an increased understanding of innovation in the public sector. 891
It is important that the public sector appreciates that optimal performance requires both
top-down and bottom-up innovation. Top-down approaches emphasise the leading role of
top management who champion their new ideas and support innovation, which is seen when
elected officials and senior managers conceive and initiate many innovations (Altshuler and
Behn, 2010). However, a bottom-up approach is also a source of many innovative projects
because frequent innovators in public sectors are civil servants at the middle manager and
frontline levels in direct contact with clients, rather than senior managers. These frontline
employees ingest ideas from outside the organisation or generate novel ideas developed
through experimentation, accidental occurrences, and other forms of experience (Borins,
2006).
Baer et al. (2015) assert that the study of innovation in organisations should also address
the joint or combined effects of individual and organisational factors. Analysis at the
individual level is particularly important, since the motivational context of the public sector
differs from the private sector. Due to the absence of the traditional rewards available in the
private sector, leaders should understand the factors which motivate public servants to
increase their effort and performance, which can then lead to increased career satisfaction.
Research at the organisational level is also significant because innovation activities mostly
occur at this level. The organisational level of analysis examines the interaction of effects
from multiple levels, which can explain how characteristics of the organisation affect the
creativity and innovation of individual employees and work groups who contribute to
overall organisational innovation (Baregheh et al., 2009). Therefore, this study examines the
combined effects of factors at the individual and the organisational level on workplace
innovation in public sectors.
Innovation has also been viewed as hinging upon a socio-psychological process because it
is the product of social relationships and complex systems of interactions (Panuwatwanich
et al., 2009b, Sarros et al., 2008). However, research investigating innovation has mainly been
derived from private sector contexts. It is important to understand how socio-psychological
processes provide practical ways to manage innovation within the complex social systems
that exist in public sectors. Within public sector contexts, there are still gaps in the literature
on the influence of socio-psychological factors on workplace innovation and career
satisfaction. Related to this is the need to provide empirical evidence regarding the key
factors that impact workplace innovation and successful workplace innovation practices
which can lead to increased career satisfaction.
Innovation significantly contributes to improving conditions for both industry, and
society as a whole, and the engineering profession is considered a key driver of innovation
(Ulijn and Fayolle, 2004; Williamson et al., 2013). This is because engineers play a vital role
in the creation, development, and generation of new technical knowledge (Menzel et al.,
2007). In many circumstances, engineers work under rigid rules where progress is controlled
by strict schedules and conformity is a type of behaviour that is rewarded. However, well-
managed organisations that engage engineers to handle and improve current activities and
at the same time have sufficient innovative capacity to anticipate possible problems, can
IJOA make changes to ensure effective outcomes and develop new solutions through innovative
26,5 behaviour. The significant element for this approach is creativity. Therefore, creating a
work environment which fosters innovation and allows engineers to use their creative
abilities is important (Panuwatwanich et al., 2009a).
From a public viewpoint, it seems that engineering creativity is quite limited since
engineering work tends to incrementally diffuse new knowledge and technology. Another
892 perception is that engineers are hesitant to be creative and innovate (Galloway, 2004).
Consequently, engineering tasks are often not major breakthroughs to the extent that would
characterise the engineer as an innovator. Furthermore, these tasks are usually
accomplished by teams and organisations, and therefore must attribute success to a group
not an individual. However, despite this perception of limited creativity, most engineering
work is inherently creative, as it requires the synthesis and application various concepts to
generate an outcome that is substantially different. Engineers must use both their intuitive
and analytical problem solving skills to synthesise and execute new solutions which
demonstrate their innovation ability to ensure that they are involved in the initial stages of
projects through their implementation stage (Williamson et al., 2013).
Another key factor to be considered is that administrative reforms over the past three
decades have had significant ramifications on the number of engineers in the public sector.
Of these reforms, competition policy, privatisation, contracting out and commercialisation
have impacted engineers (Yates, 2001). For example, an emerging body of evidence indicates
a significant decline in the number of professional engineers in the Australian national, state
and local government sectors (McGrath-Champ et al., 2011). The shortage of engineering
professionals poses a critical problem for most public services. In a recent survey of
engineers employed in the Australian Public Service (APS), it was found that one of the most
common departure reasons among those engineers who indicated that they would leave
their agency in the next two years was a lack of opportunities to work on innovative projects
(Yates, 2012). Engineering professionals cannot use their full capabilities if innovation in the
occupation is not facilitated.
No study to date has focussed specifically on the innovation process for engineering
professionals in the APS. This paper aims to fill this gap in the innovation literature by
exploring the relationships through which socio-psychological factors affect workplace
innovation and career satisfaction. Understanding these complex relationships within the
context of the APS will help management to design strategies for recruiting and retaining a
high performance engineering workforce through fostering a climate for innovation in the
public sector workplace.
The conceptual model is presented next, followed by the research method, results and
conclusions. This conceptual model, derived from past literature, illustrates the relationship
between the key constructs which constitute the climate for innovation and their role in
determining innovation-related outcomes. An explanation of the model constructs, and the
rationale behind their development is provided. This is followed by a discussion of the
research questions and the hypothesised relationships. Finally, an assessment of the model
and its results by a series of statistical analysis is provided.

Conceptual model
This section presents the formulation of the conceptual model developed to address the
identified research gap. The conceptual model was formulated using prior empirical
evidence and theory and examined causal relationships among the identified constructs.
The conceptual model consists of four constructs that have been observed in a diverse range
of innovation and creativity literature. The conceptual model logically conjectures the
relationships between these constructs and is presented in Figure 1. The four hypothesised Pathways to
relationships have been based on a synthesis of the knowledge revealed in previous studies workplace
(Panuwatwanich et al., 2008; Sarros et al., 2008).
According to the innovation process, socio-psychological factors (consisting of
innovation
leadership for innovation and ambidextrous culture for innovation) have been considered
significant determinants which foster workplace innovation (McMurray et al., 2013; Chan
et al., 2014). Both of the socio-psychological constructs which act as enablers are conjectured
as being associated with each other, and as shown in Figure 1, each construct is also 893
assumed to have a direct relationship with the construct of workplace innovation.
Workplace innovation is also related to increased career satisfaction. Even though the
degree of leadership for innovation has been recognised as a significant enabler for
workplace innovation (Amabile et al., 2004; Panuwatwanich et al., 2008; Chan et al., 2014), no
study to date has comprehensively examined the effect of the ambidextrous culture
for innovation, the interdependence between such constructs, and their impact on workplace
innovation within the public sector. Moreover, the causal relationship between workplace
innovation and career satisfaction has not been substantially verified from an empirical
standpoint. In addition, few studies have examined these relationships from the engineering
professional perspective in the public sector context. Each construct and the justification
behind its development explained below. The conjectured relationships among the
constructs are discussed the following section, hypotheses development.

Leadership for innovation

Leadership for innovation (LFI) is defined as the willingness of leaders to take risks on novel
initiatives and adopt fresh perspectives. Leadership plays a vital role in building the
processes, structures and climate for an organisation to become innovative and to motivate
team expectations towards innovations (Chan et al., 2014; Oke et al., 2009; Orazi et al., 2013).
Leadership style is regarded as a significant factor that impacts innovation in the public
sector. Wipulanusat et al. (2017a) explore the leadership styles that engineers regard as
significant for innovation in the public sector. Their findings highlight the role of
transformational and consideration leadership as the most critical predictor when
considering the degree to which subordinates strive for creativity and innovation.
Transformational leadership (LFI1) has generally been considered more effective than other
leadership styles in facilitating employee creativity and organisational innovation (García-
Morales et al., 2012; Shin and Zhou, 2003). Transformational leaders inspire subordinates to
recognise and perform organisational objectives and goals and have the capability to

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
IJOA motivate followers beyond expected levels of work standards. Consequently, subordinates
26,5 are likely to feel engaged and personally rewarded through their job, and work outcomes
such as job satisfaction and extra effort are increased (Bass and Riggio, 2006). In contrast to
leadership styles based on individual gain and the exchange of rewards for effort,
transformational leaders motivate behaviour by changing the basic values, beliefs, attitudes
and assumptions of subordinates. To direct and inspire individual effort, these leaders
894 transform their subordinates by raising their awareness of the importance of organisational
outcomes, which, in turn, activates their higher-order needs and induces them to transcend
their own self-interests for the benefit of the organisation (Wright and Pandey, 2009).
Emphasis on the mission of an organisation makes transformational leadership particularly
effective in the public sector given the service and community-oriented characteristics of their
responsibilities (Wright and Pandey, 2009). The transformational leader encourages new ideas
and practices by supporting subordinates with sufficient autonomy and discretion for
innovation to emerge (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009). Similarly, transformational leadership has
been shown to increase employee empowerment, even in public sectors associated with high
levels of bureaucracy and a strict hierarchy (Park and Rainey, 2008).
In addition to transformational leadership, the characteristics of consideration leadership
(LFI2) also play a vital role in innovation outcomes (Yukl, 2006). Consideration is the degree
to which a leader shows concern and expressions of support for subordinates, looks out for
their welfare, treats members as equal and displays warmth and approachability (Bass and
Bass, 2009). Consideration leader behaviours provide a work environment of emotional
support, friendliness, warmth and trust for followers. Some exemplary behaviours are
helping and advising followers regarding personal problems, being approachable and
expressing appreciation and support (Lee and Kwak, 2014). Consideration leadership
promotes empowerment of individual subordinates, and this relates to innovative behaviour
and effectiveness. According to De Jong and Den Hartog (2007), the empowering manager
perceives the influence of individuals and work groups and thus creates an innovative
climate where subordinates can achieve better results in their innovative initiatives. Staff
are likely to respond positively to leaders who are considerate and also genuine.
The prevalence of innovation studies has uniformly asserted the role leadership plays in
inculcating the organisational culture for innovation (Jung et al., 2003; Yukl, 2006) and
leadership style has been found by many researchers to influence workplace innovation
(Damanpour and Schneider, 2009; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009). Thus, it can be anticipated
that leadership is a significant determinant of organisational culture and workplace
innovation.

Ambidextrous culture for innovation

Most scholars have asserted the role of organisational culture in the successful management
of innovation in the public sector (Kim and Yoon, 2015; Wynen et al., 2014). Ambidextrous
culture for innovation is defined as an organisation’s shared norms and basic values to
establish innovative practices, procedures, policies and structures in the work environment,
as well as suitable balance of exploration and exploitation activities (Benner and Tushman,
2003; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Martins and Terblanche, 2003). The central idea of an
ambidextrous culture is comparable to the core idea of new public management (NPM).
Basically, NPM can create an increase in managerial autonomy, which when merged with
result control would, among other outcomes, prompt a more innovation-oriented culture and
lead to effectiveness and efficiency (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011).
The ambidextrous culture for innovation construct was operationalised by two factors.
The first type of organisational culture is an innovative culture (ACI1) where an
organisation orients towards experimenting with new solutions by exploring new resources, Pathways to
breaking through existing norms, and valuing flexibility, adaptability, creativity, risk workplace
taking and entrepreneurship (Ireland et al., 2006). An innovative culture encourages
employees to implement new services, new technologies for product development, new
innovation
organisational routines and structures (Zhou et al., 2005). Innovative culture can ensure that
employees’ consistently perceive an innovative cultural orientation, thus serving as
guidance when they face challenges affecting innovation outcomes (Lægreid et al., 2011).
The second type of ambidextrous culture for innovation stresses organisational 895
performance orientation. A performance-oriented culture (ACI2) can increase innovation
in public sectors because governments need to respond to the demands of clients and
citizens to achieve targets and performance evaluation processes (Wynen et al., 2014).
According to Lægreid et al. (2011), public sectors which have strongly developed
performance-oriented cultures are more likely to have both an innovative culture and
promote innovative activities compared to other public sectors.
Culture for innovation was also found to be a primary antecedent for workplace
innovation (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Integrating autonomy from an innovative
culture with result control from a performance-oriented culture is a characteristic of an
ambidextrous culture for innovation. Although there is presently no reported empirical
finding confirming the direct impact of an ambidextrous culture for innovation on
workplace innovation in the public sector context, it can be hypothesised that such a
relationship exists.

Workplace innovation and career satisfaction

Workplace innovation (WIT) is viewed as a contextual psychological construct which
identifies and measures the behavioural aspects of innovation practices by individuals in
their workplace (McMurray et al., 2013). Workplace innovation is created when an
individual or a team of individuals focus on improving organisational management and
technology (Totterdill and Exton, 2014). This definition highlights the interactive
characteristics of workplace innovation. When workplace innovation is aligned with an
organisation’s strategic objectives, it enables the development and improvement of
products, processes and services leading simultaneously to an increase in organisational
performance. Wipulanusat et al. (2017b) suggested that both individual creativity (WIT1)
and team innovation (WIT2) were deemed appropriate proxies that could be used to
measure workplace innovation among engineers in the APS.
Many of the most successful Australian organisations implement new business models
based on applying individual creativity to promote organisational innovation (Cavagnoli,
2011). Individual creativity at work involves the development of practical and new solutions
to workplace challenges, and providing tangible and useful outcomes for an organisation
(Amabile and Pillemer, 2012). Creativity involves social interactions embedded in the work
environment in which the communication and interaction between coworkers can
significantly improve innovative outcomes (Yuan and Woodman, 2010). When employees
perceive a work environment that fails to stimulate individual creativity, a void may occur
between the level of individual creative ability and the actual amount of creativity practised
within the organisation.
Team innovation is an important determinant in the capability of organisations to
respond to rapidly changing and challenging working environments. Organisations are
increasingly dependent on teams as the basic building blocks of modern organisations, and
effective team work can facilitate the cross-fertilisation of innovative ideas (Hoch, 2013; Shin
and Zhou, 2003). Team innovation refers to the introduction or application within a team of
IJOA ideas, processes, products or procedures that are novel to the team and that are designed to
26,5 be useful (Eisenbeiss, 2008). It is a team’s ability to develop novel ideas (i.e. creativity) and
the ability to put these ideas into practice that can yield benefits to organisations (i.e.
implementation). Implementation processes include selling ideas to other members and
making ideas available in the organisation (Axtell et al., 2000). Team innovation thus can be
operationalised as the merger of the quality and quantity of ideas that are generated and
896 implemented.
Career satisfaction (CSF) is defined as an employee’s feeling of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with their entire career. It means the positive psychological achievements
that employees obtain from the intrinsic and extrinsic facets of their careers, including
salary, promotion, feelings of pride and developmental chances (Armstrong-Stassen and
Ursel, 2009; Barnett and Bradley, 2007).
When employees seek a deeper sense of purpose and greater intrinsic values in their
careers, this is represented in the form of perceptions of the meaningfulness of their work.
Work meaningfulness (CSF1) is defined as the amount of significance and positive meaning
that employees perceive in their work (Rosso et al., 2010). Experiencing meaningfulness of
work has been postulated to be a psychological state that creates career satisfaction, having
the ability to use strengths at work, greater intrinsic work motivation and organisational
commitment (Littman-Ovadia and Steger, 2010).
Reward and recognition (CSF2) are significant contractual and implied agreements
between an employee and an employer (Chew and Chan, 2008). A sense of return on
employees’ performances can come from rewards and recognition in addition to meaningful
work (Saks, 2006). Organisations, however, can foster effective performance by creating and
combining both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards to yield capability improvement (Gagné and
Deci, 2005).
Career satisfaction is evidently related to the performance of innovation. In a survey of
Hong Kong employees from various organisations, Kim et al. (2009) found that employee
creativity was positively and significantly related to employees’ career satisfaction. This
was reinforced further by a study in the public sector context which found that
organisational practice toward innovation has a positive impact on career satisfaction (Park
et al., 2016). In view of these findings, it has been hypothesised that the construct of
workplace innovation will directly impact on the level of career satisfaction in the public
sector.

Hypotheses development
The conceptual model illustrates the feasible relationships among the four constructs. To
affirm these relationships, extant literature has been reviewed to seek the theoretical
backgrounds to develop hypotheses defining the logically conjectured relationships between
the constructs. These hypothetical relationships have been represented as a group of four
hypotheses which were tested to answer each research question and to confirm the
conjectured relationships. The following sections discuss the development of the hypotheses.

Relationship between two climate constructs

The conceptual model (Figure 1) displays plausible relationships between the primary
constructs. While these assumed relationships have been based on a broad theoretical
background, relevant empirical research has been limited. Therefore, the relationships
between these two constructs should be disentangled to understand the mechanisms
underlying the discernment of the climate for innovation. As such, it is necessary to
firstly delineate and confirm the validity of the relationship addressed in the first Pathways to
research question: workplace
RQ1. What is the relationship between the two socio-psychological constructs (leadership innovation
for innovation and ambidextrous culture for innovation) that create a climate for
innovation in the context of public sectors?

The influence of leadership on the climate for innovation has been identified as a convergent 897
process acting on both organisational culture and employee behaviour (Amabile et al., 2004;
Damanpour and Schneider, 2009). In a study by Chan et al. (2014), structural equation
modelling was used to examine 300 construction professionals in major contractor firms in
Hong Kong. The study results showed a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and an innovation climate (Chan et al., 2014). Regarding the relationships
between leadership and organisational culture for innovation, Panuwatwanich et al. (2008)
surveyed 181 design professionals employed in Australian architecture and engineering
design firms and found that leadership for innovation had a strong and positive influence on
culture for innovation. Sarros et al. (2008), in a survey of 1,158 managers in Australian
private sector organisations, found that transformational leadership was correlated with
organisational culture, mainly through the processes of articulating a vision, and to a lesser
extent through the setting of high performance goals and providing individual support to
employees. Similarly, a study of 32 Taiwanese companies conducted by Jung et al. (2003)
revealed that the recognition of organisational support for innovation was directly
influenced by transformational leadership.
From a public sector perspective, Kim and Chang (2009), in a study of 46 departments in
the Korean central government, asserted that governmental leaders required management
skills to facilitate a culture of change for ongoing and successful innovation. Based on a
survey of 1,576 civil servants in the Seoul Metropolitan Government, Kim and Yoon (2015)
found that the degree to which an employee perceived senior managers’ transformational
leadership was positively associated with employee perceptions of a favourable culture of
innovation. Recently, Zacher and Rosing (2015), using a sample of leaders and employees
from 33 architectural and interior design firms, reported a positive association between the
highest level of team innovation team leaders who fostered exploration and exploitation
activities. The findings from these previous studies have led to the presumption that a
higher level of innovation-conductive leadership should lead to an improved level of
ambidextrous culture for innovation, hence the first hypothesis:

H1. Leadership for innovation positively influences ambidextrous culture for innovation.

Influence of climate constructs on workplace innovation

The two climate constructs displayed in the conceptual model have also been predicted to be
correlated with workplace innovation. To affirm this proposition, the relationships between
the climate constructs and workplace innovation were investigated with the second research
question (RQ2):

RQ2. Does each of the two socio-psychological constructs impact on workplace

innovation in the context of public sectors?

To answer this research question, two hypotheses were developed. The direct relationship
between leadership and workplace innovation was investigated first. As well as influencing
the perception of the ambidextrous culture for innovation, leadership style has been found
IJOA by many researchers to influence workplace innovation. For instance, a study of 725 local
26,5 governments in the USA conducted by Damanpour and Schneider (2009) found that leaders’
pro innovation attitudes positively influenced innovation adoption. In another study,
transformational leadership was revealed to have significant effects on creativity at both the
individual and organisational levels (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009). In a study of 168 Spanish
firms, García-Morales et al. (2012) verified a positive relationship between transformational
898 leadership and innovation directly and indirectly through the construction of competencies
which focussed on learning. Afsar et al. (2014), in a study of the five most innovative
companies in China, found that transformational leadership positively affected the employee
innovative behaviour, including idea generation and idea implementation. Judge et al. (2004)
revealed that consideration leadership was associated with employee motivation and was an
important antecedent for organisational change. Kim and Lee (2009), in their study within the
Korean Government, confirmed that the adoption and implementation of innovative projects
required innovative leadership, which was characterised by effective change management,
leadership commitment and stability, and was the most significant factor in promoting the
dynamics of governmental innovation. Similarly, when Kim and Chang (2009) evaluated the
capacity for innovation in the Korean Government, they found leadership style presented a
strong positive relationship with innovativeness. In light of these findings, it can be
reasonably hypothesised that a strong leadership for innovation can lead to a high level of
workplace innovation. The foregoing assumption led to the second hypothesis:

H2. Leadership for innovation positively influences workplace innovation.

RQ2 also examined the link between ambidextrous culture for innovation and workplace
innovation. To support such a link from an empirical stance, Škerlavaj et al. (2010), in a
study of 201 Korean companies employing more than 50 people, demonstrated a positive
and statistically significant relationship between innovative culture and technological and
administrative innovation. Panuwatwanich et al. (2009b) also found a positive relationship
between organisational culture for innovation and innovation diffusion outcomes from the
results of their structural equation modelling. Moreover, in 102 Taiwanese strategic
business units, Chen et al. (2012) discovered that a strong innovative culture was a
substitute for transformational leadership behaviour to facilitate technological innovation.
Focussing on findings from public sectors, Kim and Yoon (2015) indicated that employee
perceptions of a culture of innovation had a positive direct effect on the climate for creativity
by enhancing the recognition of employee creativity, the flexibility to change and resources
for innovation. This was further reinforced by findings from Lægreid et al. (2011). Based on
a survey of 121 Norwegian and Flemish state agencies, their study found that a
performance-oriented culture had a positive effect on employees’ perceptions of an
innovative culture, which in turn influenced the generation of innovative activity.
Integrating autonomy from an innovative culture with result control from a performance-
oriented culture is a characteristic of an ambidextrous culture for innovation. Although
there is presently no empirical finding confirming the direct impact of ambidextrous culture
for innovation on workplace innovation in public sectors, it can be instinctively proposed
that such a relationship exists. This statement indicates the third hypothesis:

H3. Ambidextrous culture for innovation positively influences workplace innovation.

Contribution of workplace innovation to career satisfaction

The contribution of workplace innovation to career satisfaction was investigated to address
the third research question:
 RQ3. Does the workplace innovation increase career satisfaction in the context of public Pathways to
sectors? workplace
innovation
The findings from a study in health-care organisations revealed that group creativity was
associated with increased job satisfaction (Valentine et al., 2011). Cheng et al. (2010)
conducted an empirical survey of the R&D Personnel in Taiwanese manufacturing
companies. They developed a mathematical model and proved that product and process 899
innovations were significantly and positively related to organisation performance, which in
turn enhanced employee job satisfaction. Lee et al. (2014) demonstrated that an open
innovation climate, comprising innovation and flexibility, outward focus and reflexivity,
had a direct effect on job satisfaction.
In the public sector context, Lambert and Hogan (2009), in a study of a Midwestern
correctional facility staff in the USA, found that perceptions of organisational innovation
had statistically significant and positive associations with job satisfaction. Similarly, in a
study of 175 local police officers in Spain, García-Buades et al. (2015) indicated that
developing an innovation climate had a positive impact on job satisfaction. Using the results
of a 2013 US Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Park et al. (2016) discovered that
organisational practices towards innovation had a positive impact on job satisfaction. In
view of these findings, it has been hypothesised that the construct of workplace innovation
will directly impact the level of career satisfaction in public sectors, thus the fourth
hypothesis has been developed:

H4. Workplace innovation positively influences career satisfaction.

This study has proposed four hypotheses representing the relationships between the
constructs of the conceptual model. Responses to the three research questions were found
through further testing of the hypotheses and the confirmation of the conjectured
relationships.

Research methodology
Study design and participants
This study used data from the 2014 APS employee census, conducted by the Australian
Public Service Commission (APSC). A survey instrument was administered to gather data
from civil servants in Commonwealth departments using an online survey to measure
employees’ attitudes and opinions regarding important issues, such as leadership, agency’s
culture, innovation and job satisfaction. To yield results representative of Australian
Commonwealth civil servants stratification, four demographic characteristics was used: job
classification level, agency size, agency type and location. Previous APSC survey data have
also been used in several innovation research studies, for example, by Torugsa and Arundel
(2016) and Demircioglu and Audretsch (2017).
This study draws on the perspectives of engineers as key informants with the target
population being the engineering profession, classified in the APSC Job Family Model as the
Engineering and Technical Family. The large sample size surveyed in the State of the
Service Employee Census and its widespread coverage of Federal Departments has allowed
for the generalisability of the federal bureaucracy results on a national scale, including the
perspectives of engineering professions because it reached the desired population of
engineers within the Federal Government. In total, 3,570 survey respondents reported their
type of work as Engineering and Technical profession. Responses with missing values
IJOA across all of the variables were excluded leaving a total of 3,125 respondents available for
26,5 this study.
The sample population represented a gender mix of 14 per cent female and 86 per cent
male predominantly aged between 45 and 59 years (49 per cent) who had total length of
service of more than 5 years (73 per cent); 68 per cent worked in an operational role (APS 1-6)
and were well educated, with 78 per cent holding tertiary qualifications (Bachelor or higher);
900 86 per cent worked in operational agencies and 91 per cent worked in large agencies (>1,000
employees). The distribution of the demographic profile of participants approximated the
distribution of the population from which they were drawn.

Measurement
The instrument used in this paper was adapted by the researchers after an extensive review
of all the questions in the 2014 APS employee census. A total of 37 survey questions were
selected and grouped according to their conceptual relevance to the constructs in the
proposed conceptual model. The survey evaluation scale was refined slightly to align with
typical Likert scales (i.e. 1 = “strongly disagree”; 3 = “neutral” and 5 = “strongly agree”).
The survey items used to measure these four constructs are shown in Appendix.
Leadership for innovation was measured using six items related to transformational
leadership (e.g. “Your immediate supervisor’s action motivates people” and “My supervisor
is open to new ideas”) and five items related to consideration leadership (e.g. “My supervisor
treats people with respect”). These scales emphasised the behaviours of leaders and
supervisors in government agencies which were perceived by their followers as encouraging
and promoting creativity and innovation in the workplace. These items determined the
extent to which the respondents stated their agreement that their supervisors had strong
innovation conducive behaviours.
Ambidextrous culture for innovation was measured using six items related to innovative
culture (e.g. “My agency prioritises ideas development”) and five items related to
performance-oriented culture (e.g. “My agency prioritises goals achievement”). These items
evaluate a system of shared values and norms within the agencies that achieved a balance
between exploration and exploitation to be a creative and innovative organisation. The
extent to which the APS emphasised innovation as a feature of its culture was also
examined.
Workplace innovation was measured using four items related to individual creativity
(e.g. “I am able to explore new ideas”) and three items related to team innovation (e.g. “My
work group improves the providing service”). This seven-item scale related to the extent an
individual or a team of individuals focused on improving organisational management and
technology to enable the development and improvement of products, processes and services
leading simultaneously to an increase in organisational performance.
Finally, eight items were used to measure career satisfaction. Meaningful work was
measured using a three-item scale (e.g. ‘My job gives me my personal accomplishment’). The
measure of reward and recognition involved four items with questions such as, ‘I am fairly
remunerated for my work’ and ‘I am satisfied with the recognition for my good job’. This
eight-item scale related to the positive psychological achievements that employees obtained
from the intrinsic and extrinsic facets of their careers.

Structural equation modelling

Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a statistical technique used to test how well a
proposed conceptual model explains or fits the sample data (Hair et al., 2010). SEM is used to
assess the causal relationships among a set of unobserved variables (i.e. construct), and also
describes the amount of unexplained variance (Hoyle, 2011). Particularly, SEM allows a Pathways to
simulant analysis of multiple interrelated dependence relationships that incorporates the workplace
observed indicators and latent constructs in graphical language, which is a powerful
approach to present complicated relationships and related estimated parameters (Hair et al.,
innovation
2010). The procedure for the SEM followed a two-step procedure recommended by Caplan
(2010): validating a measurement model and fitting a structural model (Byrne, 2010; Hair
et al., 2010). A measurement model, which is achieved through Confirmatory Factor
901
Analysis (CFA), examines the loading relationships between latent constructs and their
corresponding observed indicators to assess the validity and reliability of the measures.
Structural models examine the hypothesised relationships among the latent constructs
through path analysis. Both CFA and SEM were conducted using AMOS 22.0.
An assessment of model fit was performed for both steps to determine the extent to
which the proposed model was a good fit for the data. Model fit is assessed through an
inferential Chi-square ( x 2 ) and several descriptive goodness-of-fit indices. As the Chi-square
( x 2 ) is known to be inflated in samples with N > 200 (Kelloway, 1998), the Chi-square ( x 2 )
and degree of freedom (df) are reported as descriptive information rather than a strong
inferential test of whether a model can be accepted or rejected. Multiple alternative fit
indices were used to measure the degree of model-fit: goodness-of-fit index (GFI);
comparative fit index (CFI); Tucker-Lewis index (TLI); incremental-fit index (IFI);
standardised root mean square residual (SRMR); and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). To consider the model as having an acceptable fit, all six indices
were measured against the following criteria: GFI, CFI, TLI and IFI > 0.90; SRMR < 0.05;
and RMSEA < 0.08 (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2010; Hoyle, 2011).
The reliability of the model was evaluated by assessing composite reliability (CR) and
average variance extracted (AVE) for the factors. The CR measures the internal reliability of
all the variables in their measurement of a construct and the AVE determines the amount of
variance in the measured indicators captured by the latent construct. Bagozzi and Yi (1988)
suggested 0.60 and 0.50 as the minimum values for CR and AVE, respectively.

Results
Exploratory factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to assess the dimensionality of each
construct. A principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was initially
conducted to examine the validity of the construct. The values of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
(KMO), ranging from 0.85 to 0.94, were well above the minimum acceptable level of 0.60,
which indicated sampling adequacy such that the values in the matrix were sufficiently
distributed to conduct factor analysis (George and Mallery, 2016). The EFA results are
presented in Table I. Four criteria were used to achieve the number of factors that best
described the underlying relationship among variables, namely, latent root criterion; Catell’s
scree test; percentage of variance criterion; and a priori criterion (Hair et al., 2010). Based on
these four criteria, all constructs consisted of a two-factor structure which were
substantiated by the cumulative percentage of variance extracted, ranging from 61.1 to 77.6
per cent, as presented in Table I.
To ensure that the items were representative of each factor, they were selected using two
criteria. First, their loading values should be greater than 0.5. Second, they should only be
loaded on the extracted factor, thus items that cross-loaded on two factors were dropped
from each construct. One variable was cross-loaded between two factors, and was thus
removed from the set of LFI measures. Finally, all constructs had a Cronbach’s alpha greater
IJOA than 0.70, which showed measurement scales consisting of a set of homogeneous items to
26,5 measure the meaning of the factor (Hair et al., 2010).
Expectedly, EFA grouped items similarly to the way they were grouped in the
conceptual model, which was informed from the literature review. To examine the factor
meanings, the items in each factor were observed and used as indicators for the
explanations. The factors were examined and given a descriptive title that represented
902 the characteristics of the constructs. The EFA confirmed the validity and reliability of these
constructs by illustrating that the meaning of the model constructs were related to the
factors. EFA also identifies the number of latent variables underlying the complete set of
items. However, the preliminary EFA results for the factor structure of each construct were
inadequate to establish the appropriate dimensionality of the measures which meant
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) subsequently needs to be performed. The CFA
determined the overall goodness-of-fit of all the constructs and the measurement model to
demonstrate the validity of the measures (Byrne, 2010).

Measurement model
A measurement model indicates the posited relationships of the observed indicators to the
latent constructs, in which the constructs can be freely inter-correlated. Before testing the
structural model, the measurement model was tested using CFA to ensure the goodness of
fit for all the variables (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). To accurately calculate the model parameters
and fit indices, CFA was conducted using the maximum likelihood (ML) approach which
simultaneously minimised the discrepancies between the covariances of the observed data
and the proposed model (Kline, 2015). The next step involved testing each of the four
constructs in the conceptual model using CFA. This was follow by testing the overall
measurement model. The results of the CFA verified that the indicators were acceptable as
shown in Table II.
CFA was also conducted to assess a four-construct measurement model. A partial
disaggregation approach was used for the measurement model because this approach
reduced random error, took fewer iterations to converge, and produced stable solutions,

Cumulative Cronbach’s
Construct KMO variance (%) alpha Factor: description

Leadership for 0.94 77.6 0.945 LFI1: Transformational leadership (6 items)

innovation (LFI) LFI2: Consideration Leadership (4 items)
Ambidextrous culture 0.90 61.1 0.890 ACI1: Innovative culture (6 Items)
for innovation (ACI) ACI2: Performance-oriented culture (5 items)
Workplace innovation 0.85 69.1 0.845 WIT1: Individual creativity (4 items)
Table I. (WIT) WIT2: Team innovation (3 items)
Summary of EFA Career satisfaction (CSF) 0.86 65.4 0.851 CSF1: Meaningful work (3 items)
results CSF2: Reward and recognition (5 items)

Construct a GFI CFI TLI IFI SRMR RMSEA p-value

Table II. LFI 0.922 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.01 0.05 0.001
Summary of CFA ACI 0.849 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.02 0.05 0.001
results for each WIT 0.849 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.02 0.08 0.001
construct CSF 0.851 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.001
while maintaining the multiple indicator approach (Bakker et al., 2012). Item parcels were Pathways to
created by averaging the questionnaire items into their respective factors and then treating workplace
them as reflective indicators of their respective construct, as presented in Figure 2.
The results of the CFA conducted on the measurement model are presented in Table III.
innovation
The CFA results demonstrated that the measurement model provided an acceptable fit to
the observed data ( x 2 = 287.45, df = 14, GFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.95, IFI = 0.98,
SRMR = 0.02, and RMSEA = 0.08). Based on the acceptable level of the fit indices, the
measurement model was considered to have upheld unidimensionality. All indicators had 903
loadings greater than 0.50 and the t-values for each regression path surpassed the critical
values of 3.29 (p < 0.001), confirming convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). Almost all the

Figure 2.
Measurement model

Construct/factor Loadings t-values* R2 CR AVE

Leadership for Innovation 0.82 0.69

LFI1: Transformational leadership 0.88 f.p. 0.77
LFI2: Consideration leadership 0.78 44.12 0.61
Ambidextrous Culture for Innovation 0.75 0.61
ACI1: Innovative culture 0.92 f.p. 0.85
ACI2: Performance-oriented culture 0.61 32.40 0.37
Workplace Innovation 0.72 0.57
WIT1: Individual creativity 0.85 f.p. 0.72
WIT2: Team innovation 0.65 34.72 0.42
Career Satisfaction 0.75 0.60
CSF1: Meaningful work 0.70 f.p. 0.49
CSF2: Reward and recognition 0.84 39.44 0.71
Table III.
Notes: Model fit indices: x 2 = 287.45; df = 14, GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.95; IFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.02 Measurement model
and RMSEA = 0.08; f.p.; Parameter is fixed for estimation purpose; *all t-values are significant at p < 0.001 results
IJOA indicators had R2 values greater than 0.50. Two indicators with low R2 values were retained
26,5 in the measurement model since their loadings were substantial and highly significant. The
correlation coefficient values between the two factors ranged from 0.63 to 0.87, thus
indicating discriminant validity. The CR values for all factors in the measurement model
ranged from 0.72 to 0.82, demonstrating that these factors had adequate internal consistency
and were sufficient in their representation of the construct. All factors also had AVE values
904 greater than 0.50, indicating that more variance was captured by the variables within each
factor and they all shared more variance in the factor than with other factors. Therefore,
these results indicated that the measurement model was appropriate for the subsequent
structural model assessment.

Structural model
In accordance with Caplan (2010), after the measurement model was validated, the structural
model was conducted to test the hypothesised relationships among the latent constructs.
Given SEM estimation is susceptible to deviation from multivariate normality, a test of
normality was conducted prior to the analysis. The critical ratio of Mardia’s multivariate
kurtosis was 65.06, which was higher than the critical value of 1.96 (Sampaio, 2012). An
absence of multivariate normality can inflate the chi-square value, underestimate goodness-
of fit indices and calculate inaccurate values of the standard errors (Arbuckle, 2013; Byrne,
2010). Therefore, bootstrapping was applied to the non-normal multivariate data. The final
structural model was tested using 1,000 bootstrap samples to achieve valid probability
estimates (Cheung and Lau, 2008).
By examining the fit indices, the conceptual structural model might have been under-
identified because the RMSEA value was found to be 0.11, which was greater than the
acceptable level of 0.08. An alternative model that fits the data is required when a
hypothesised model cannot be used based on unacceptable goodness of-fit statistics. Post
hoc modification of the model may be needed and this can be achieved by restricting the
changes to paths that are theoretically justifiable. Post hoc modification can be successful if
there is a large sample size (Lei and Wu, 2007). The sample size of 3,125 was deemed
appropriate for post hoc modification. Analysis of the theoretical explanation is also
required to confirm the adding path makes substantive theoretical sense (Martens and
Haase, 2006). The revised model was suggested by inspecting the modification indices
which identified a direct path from the ambidextrous culture for innovation construct to the
career satisfaction construct. Although this path was not hypothesised earlier, sufficient
support was found in the literature to support that ambidextrous culture for innovation,
operationalised as perceived innovative culture and performance-oriented culture, is
positively related to career satisfaction in the US Federal Government (Yang and Kassekert,
2010). The revised model was then assessed to ensure that it fit the observed data and thus,
could be used as the final structural model fits the observed data. Figure 3 displays the
standardised path estimates for the final structural model. The results of goodness of fit
indices exhibited an acceptable level of model fit ( x 2 = 300.89, df = 15, GFI = 0.98, CFI =
0.98, TLI = 0.95, IFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.02 and RMSEA = 0.08). Post hoc modification should
lead to an increase in explained variance or, at least, no change (Weston and Paul, 2006). No
change in explained variance was evident for career satisfaction (i.e. R2 values equal to 0.80
for both models). The revised model was then assessed to ensure it fit the observed data and
thus could be used as the final structural model fit the observed data.
For complex analyses, bootstrapping is effective in calculating biases and variances and
obtaining confidence intervals. It estimates standard error which establishes statistical
confidence limits. This allows the calculation of the confidence intervals of the standardised
 Pathways to
workplace
innovation

905

Figure 3.
Final structural
model

path coefficient. Table IV shows bootstrapped path estimates ( b ), standardised errors (SE)
and their respective 95 per cent bias-corrected confidence intervals (i.e. the upper and lower
bounds). These calculations evaluated the stability of the parameter estimates.
According to the estimated coefficients, leadership for innovation, which was considered
as an exogenous construct, exerted a strong and positive influence on ambidextrous culture
for innovation (0.64, p < 0.001) and workplace innovation (0.64, p < 0.001), thus providing
support for H1 and H2. Ambidextrous culture for innovation had a moderate and positive
influence on workplace innovation (0.32, p < 0.001), thus supporting H3. The path coefficient
from workplace innovation to career satisfaction was moderate and positive (0.29, p <
0.001), thus providing support for H4. Finally, the new proposed path relationship from
ambidextrous culture for innovation to career satisfaction showed a significant result,
indicated by the strong and positive standardised coefficient (0.66, p < 0.001). This
demonstrated that ambidextrous culture for innovation accounted for a large degree of the
variance within the career satisfaction construct (Campbell and Im, 2015).

Assessment of mediation
A mediating relationship is one which explains how a predictor influences an outcome
variable (Hayes, 2009). A mediation model illustrates how a mediator variable clarifies the
nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (MacKinnon

Standardised path coefficient

Path b S.E. Lower bounds Upper bounds

LFI ! ACI 0.64 0.020 0.59 0.67

LFI ! WIT 0.64 0.027 0.58 0.69 Table IV.
ACI ! WIT 0.32 0.028 0.27 0.38 Bootstrapping of
WIT ! CSF 0.29 0.040 0.22 0.37 standardised path
ACI ! CSF 0.66 0.037 0.59 0.73 coefficient
IJOA and Fairchild, 2009). That is how the independent variable influences the mediator variable
26,5 and, as a consequence, impact on the dependent variable. The mediation effects were
assessed for significance using bootstrapping, which is a statistical re-sampling method
which estimated the parameters of the model strictly from the sample (Preacher and Hayes,
2008). Bootstrap-based analysis does not require a normal distribution of indirect effects, and it
computes the accurate confidence intervals of indirect effects to yield a range of credible
906 population values for the mediation effect (MacKinnon et al., 2004; Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
When the lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval of indirect effects do not include
zero, then indirect pathways are significant and indicate mediation (Hayes, 2009).
To assess mediation for the specific indirect pathway, visual basic syntax was written in
user-defined estimands using a boot-strapping procedure which yielded point estimates of
specific indirect effects accompanied by both confidence intervals and significance values
(Arbuckle, 2013; Cheung and Lau, 2008). As shown in Table V, the bootstrapping analysis
revealed that the biased-corrected confidence intervals did not include zero. Therefore, all
indirect pathways were significant and, suggested mediation for all indirect pathways in the
final structural model. These results indicated that leadership for innovation exerted its
indirect effect on career satisfaction through the simple mediating effect of ambidextrous
culture for innovation and workplace innovation and the sequential mediating effect of
ambidextrous culture for innovation through workplace innovation.

Discussion and conclusion

Data from a large survey of engineering professionals used in various Commonwealth of
Australia departments were adopted to examine the hypothesised relationships of
constructs associated with the conceptual model. All four hypotheses were supported due to
the significant path. The model indicates that two social psychological constructs (i.e.
leadership for innovation and ambidextrous culture for innovation) influence workplace
innovation which, in turn, would improve career satisfaction. Additionally, the new
proposed path relationship from ambidextrous culture for innovation to career satisfaction
shows a positively significant direct relationship. Consistent with the literature, the key
finding gleaned from this pattern of relationships is that the role of leaders seems to be the
most significant antecedent of workplace innovation in facilitating the work environment
for creativity and innovation (Damanpour and Schneider, 2009; Kim and Chang, 2009). This
highlights that without effective leadership, which encourages and motivates employees to
be creative with acceptable pressure of accountability, workplace innovation in federal
departments is unlikely to occur. Leaders also act as champions to cultivate an
ambidextrous culture for innovation in the public sector. This finding is consistent with
other studies which highlight the significant role of leadership for innovation in fostering
both innovative cultures and performance-oriented cultures in public sector organisations
(Kim and Yoon, 2015; Lægreid et al., 2011). The indirect effect of leadership occurs by
inducing a culture that fosters individual’s creative ideas and enables innovation

95% confidence intervals

Table V. Model pathways Point estimate Lower bounds Upper bounds
Bootstrapping LFI ! ACI ! CSF 0.312 0.264 0.363
indirect effects and LFI ! WIT ! CSF 0.138 0.097 0.184
95% confidence LFI ! ACI ! WIT ! CSF 0.044 0.032 0.061
intervals LFI ! ACI ! WIT 0.169 0.142 0.202
implementation within a team. This demonstrates that leaders play an important role in Pathways to
setting appropriate organisational conditions for public sector innovation success. workplace
Given the scarcity of research on the ramifications of workplace innovation, perhaps the
most noteworthy of the findings from the study is that workplace innovation has a
innovation
significant and positive impact on career satisfaction. These findings reveal that engineers
in the Australian Federal departments regard perceptions of workplace innovation as
essential for a more satisfactory career. For engineers to acquire positive feelings about their
jobs, it is necessary to cultivate work environments which encourage innovation and allow 907
them to apply their creative abilities. The empirical evidence of an additional path shows
ambidextrous culture for innovation is reflected by the combination of innovative culture
and performance-oriented culture exerting influence through career satisfaction. Engineers
who work in an innovative culture where they are given opportunities to use a high degree
of creativity and innovation to respond to challenges and resolve problems in today’s fast
changing situations can satisfy their career goals. In the public sector, engineers who believe
performance-oriented culture is highly valued in their organisation are more likely to have
greater career satisfaction (Yang and Kassekert, 2010).
This study also investigated the mediation effects within the model and revealed that the
relation between leadership for innovation and career satisfaction involved simple
mediation via the ambidextrous culture for innovation and workplace innovation constructs.
In addition, the results revealed a sequential path from ambidextrous culture for innovation
to workplace innovation as subsequent mediators between leadership for innovation and
career satisfaction. This means that positive ambidextrous culture for innovation and
workplace innovation sequentially mediate the relationship between leadership for
innovation and career satisfaction.
However, instigating improvement strategies for the key mediating factors, namely, culture
for innovation and workplace innovation, within the public service context can be challenging
since efforts must overcome the rigid status quo mentality of organisation. Nevertheless, even
though leaders encounter pressure to deliver expeditious and measurable performance
outcomes, changes to intermediate management factors are essential to achieving long-term
impacts and, more efficient and effective public services (Moynihan et al., 2012).

Implications
Overall, the findings emphasise the importance of Australian Federal departments
providing opportunities for their engineers to engage in creative and innovative projects
which enhance their professional careers, for example, roles involving new product and
strategy development, service improvement, and technical innovation. The structural model
developed in this study could be used to underpin the implementation of a coherent and
comprehensive approach to address current shortages of engineering professionals in the
APS. Many agencies have experienced problems retaining engineers due to a lack of
opportunities to work on innovative projects, which leads to low career satisfaction. For
supervisors, it is important to focus on higher levels of the ambidextrous culture for
innovation and workplace innovation constructs which relate positively to career
satisfaction. This means facilitating an ambidextrous culture for innovation and workplace
innovation in their agencies. To do this, supervisors need to encourage an innovative and
performance-oriented culture to inculcate an ambidextrous culture for innovation. For
example, supervisors should allow for some acceptable level of error, give room for
individual ideas, and encourage experimentation with different ideas to facilitate an
innovative culture. In addition, it is also important to provide a performance-oriented culture
by monitoring and controlling goal attainment, setting standard procedures and adhering to
IJOA plans. Given that a positive attitude towards workplace innovation is important for career
26,5 satisfaction, it is necessary to promote a work environment in which engineers can test
ideas, reflect on lessons learned, share ideas and knowledge, implement analytical problem
solving skills and develop innovative ideas in their engineering work. Successfully
implementing these strategies could improve workplace innovation and career satisfaction
which would increase recognition of an engineer’s contribution to their agency, thus
908 retaining and advancing in-house engineering expertise.

Limitation and future works

While this paper provides both theoretical contributions and managerial implications, the
findings should be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, most of the
questionnaire items were self-reported, based on the perceptions of individual respondents, so
the results may be considered subjective. However, the possibility of self-reported bias does not
appear to influence the research outcomes due to evidence of construct validity between the
variables. Future research could address the issue of self-reported bias by using objective
metrics. Second, the data collected cross-sectional data from one survey and, as a result, may
introduce spurious relationships among the constructs and the potential for common source
bias. Nevertheless, Harman’s single-factor test indicated no single factor underlying the data;
therefore, the common method variance did not seem to be a critical issue. In addition, for future
research, a longitudinal research design, where data are collected at different points in time,
should be used to consider the “time” factor, which is an important element in the innovation
process. Third, the SEM model has a limitation in that all factors were treated as indicators
representing latent constructs, so the developed model displays only causal relationships
between constructs. To address this limitation, Bayesian Networks (BN) should be conducted
as an integrated approach for SEM to evaluate the interrelationships between the existing
constructs at the factor level. Fourth, a questionnaire survey does not qualitatively validate the
conjectured relationships in the APS. Thus, interview-based data collected from case studies
should be conducted to verify identified relationships, thereby offering a deeper perspective on
the development of the arguments and would provide the context to understand the innovation
process in the public sector. Finally, this paper uses data from the Australian Public Service
which has predominantly an Anglo-Saxon culture, so some of the results may not be
generalisable to eastern countries which have been exposed to Confucian values. Future
research may implement the developed model to perform a comparative analysis between
countries operating in these two circumstances, to compare results and to gain insights into the
innovation process in both Eastern and Western contexts.

References
Afsar, B., Badir, Y.F. and Saeed, B.B. (2014), “Transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 8, pp. 1270-1300.
Altshuler, A.A. and Behn, R.D. (2010), Innovation in American Government: Challenges, Opportunities,
and Dilemmas, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Amabile, T.M. and Pillemer, J. (2012), “Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity”, The Journal
of Creative Behavior, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004), “Leader behaviors and the work
environment for creativity: perceived leader support”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 5-32.
Arbuckle, J. (2013), AMOS 22. User’s Guide, SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.
Armstrong-Stassen, M. and Ursel, N.D. (2009), “Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, Pathways to
and the retention of older workers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 201-220. workplace
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000), innovation
“Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 265-285.
Baer, M., Evans, K., Oldham, G.R. and Boasso, A. (2015), “The social network side of individual
innovation”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 191-223. 909
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012), “Proactive personality and job performance: the role of job
crafting and work engagement”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1359-1378.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. and Sambrook, S. (2009), “Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1323-1339.
Barnett, B.R. and Bradley, L. (2007), “The impact of organisational support for career development on
career satisfaction”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 617-636.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2009), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Psychology Press, NJ, NJ.
Bekkers, V., Edelenbos, J. and Steijn, B. (2011), Innovation in the Public Sector, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238-256.
Borins, S. (2006), The Challenge of Innovation in Government: Endowment for the Business of
Government, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Arlington, VA.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.
Campbell, J.W. and Im, T. (2015), “Identification and trust in public organizations: a communicative
approach”, Public Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1065-1084.
Caplan, S.E. (2010), “Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet use: a two-step
approach”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1089-1097.
Cavagnoli, D. (2011), “A conceptual framework for innovation: an application to human resource
management policies in Australia”, Innovation, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 111-125.
Chan, I.Y.S., Liu, A.M.M. and Fellows, R. (2014), “Role of leadership in fostering an innovation climate
in construction firms”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1-7.
Chen, M.Y.-C., Lin, C.Y.-Y., Lin, H.-E. and McDonough, E.F. (2012), “Does transformational leadership
facilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative culture and incentive
compensation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 239-264.
Cheng, C.-F., Lai, M.-K. and Wu, W.-Y. (2010), “Exploring the impact of innovation strategy on R&D
employees’ job satisfaction: a mathematical model and empirical research”, Technovation,
Vol. 30 Nos 7/8, pp. 459-470.
Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R.S. (2008), “Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 296-325.
Chew, J. and Chan, C.C.A. (2008), “Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention
to stay”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 503-522.
Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M. (2009), “Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in
public organizations: assessing the role of managers”, Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 495-522.
IJOA De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.
26,5
Demircioglu, M.A. and Audretsch, D.B. (2017), “Conditions for innovation in public sector
organizations”, Research Policy, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1681-1691.
Eisenbeiss, S.A. (2008), “Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate
principles”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1438-1446.
910 Fernandez, S. and Pitts, D.W. (2011), “Understanding employee motivation to innovate: evidence from
front line employees in United States federal agencies”, Australian Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 202-222.
Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362.
Galloway, P.D. (2004), “Innovation – engineering a better engineer for today’s workforce”, Leadership
and Management in Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 127-132.
García-Buades, M.E., Ramis-Palmer, C. and Manassero-Mas, M.A. (2015), “Climate for innovation,
performance, and job satisfaction of local police in Spain”, Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 722-737.
García-Morales, V.J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M. and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012), “Transformational
leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and
innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 1040-1050.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2016), IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Gumusluoglu, L. and Ilsev, A. (2009), “Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational
innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 461-473.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayes, A.F. (2009), “Beyond baron and kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium”,
Communication Monographs, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 408-420.
Hoch, J.E. (2013), “Shared leadership and innovation: the role of vertical leadership and employee
integrity”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 159-174.
Hoyle, R.H. (2011), Structural Equation Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology, SAGE
Publications, London.
Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. and Morris, M.H. (2006), “A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship:
innovation at all levels: part I”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 10-17.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Ilies, R. (2004), “The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and
initiating structure in leadership research”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 36-51.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4-5, pp. 525-544. No
Kelloway, K.E. (1998), Using Lisrel for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, Sage
Publications, CA, CA.
Kim, S.E. and Chang, G.W. (2009), “An empirical analysis of innovativeness in government: findings
and implications”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 293-310.
Kim, T.-Y., Hon, A.H.Y. and Crant, J.M. (2009), “Proactive personality, employee creativity, and
newcomer outcomes: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 93-103.
Kim, S.E. and Lee, J.W. (2009), “The impact of management capacity on government innovation in Pathways to
Korea: an empirical study”, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 345-369.
workplace
Kim, S. and Yoon, G. (2015), “An innovation-driven culture in local government: do senior manager’s
transformational leadership and the climate for creativity matter?”, Public Personnel
innovation
Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 147-168.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford publications, New
York, NY.
Lægreid, P., Roness, P.G. and Verhoest, K. (2011), “Explaining the innovative culture and activities of
911
state agencies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1321-1347.
Lambert, E.G. and Hogan, N.L. (2009), “Wanting change: the relationship of perceptions of
organizational innovation with correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment”, Criminal Justice Policy Review.
Lee, D. and Kwak, W.J. (2014), “Interactive effects of consideration leadership on the association of injury
with training among home health aides”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Lee, C.-S., Chen, Y.-C., Tsui, P.-L. and Yu, T.-H. (2014), “Examining the relations between open
innovation climate and job satisfaction with a PLS path model”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 48
No. 3, pp. 1705-1722.
Lei, P.-W. and Wu, Q. (2007), “Introduction to structural equation modeling: issues and practical
considerations”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Littman-Ovadia, H. and Steger, M. (2010), “Character strengths and well-being among volunteers
and employees: toward an integrative model”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 6,
pp. 419-430.
McGrath-Champ, S., Rosewarne, S. and Rittau, Y. (2011), “From one skill shortage to the next: the
australian construction industry and geographies of a global labour market”, Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 467-485.
McMurray, A.J., Islam, M.M., Sarros, J.C. and Pirola-Merlo, A. (2013), “Workplace innovation in a
nonprofit organization”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 367-388.
MacKinnon, D.P. and Fairchild, A.J. (2009), “Current directions in mediation analysis”, Current
Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 99-128.
Martens, M.P. and Haase, R.F. (2006), “Advanced applications of structural equation modeling in
counseling psychology research”, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 878-911.
Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003), “Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and
innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Menzel, H.C., Aaltio, I. and Ulijn, J.M. (2007), “On the way to creativity: engineers as intrapreneurs in
organizations”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 732-743.
Moynihan, D.P., Pandey, S.K. and Wright, B.E. (2012), “Setting the table: how transformational
leadership fosters performance information use”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 143-164.
Oke, A., Munshi, N. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “The influence of leadership on innovation processes
and activities”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 64-72.
Orazi, D.C., Turrini, A. and Valotti, G. (2013), “Public sector leadership: new perspectives for research
and practice”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 486-504.
Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R.A. and Mohamed, S. (2008), “The role of climate for innovation in
enhancing business performance: the case of design firms”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 407-422.
IJOA Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R.A. and Mohamed, S. (2009a), “Critical pathways to enhanced innovation
diffusion and business performance in Australian design firms”, Automation in Construction,
26,5 Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 790-797.
Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R.A. and Mohamed, S. (2009b), “Validation of an empirical model for
innovation diffusion in Australian design firms”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 449-467.
Park, S.M. and Rainey, H.G. (2008), “Leadership and public service motivation in US federal agencies”,
International Public Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 109-142.
912
Park, S., Tseng, Y. and Kim, S. (2016), “The impact of innovation on job satisfaction: evidence from US
federal agencies”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 274-286.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2011), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), “On the meaning of work: a theoretical
integration and review”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 91-127.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Sampaio, A. (2012), “Wine tourism and visitors’ perceptions: a structural equation modelling
approach”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 533-553.
Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2008), “Building a climate for innovation through
transformational leadership and organizational culture”, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-158.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from
korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-714.
Škerlavaj, M., Song, J.H. and Lee, Y. (2010), “Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and
innovations in South Korean firms”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 6390-6403.
Torugsa, N. and Arundel, A. (2016), “Complexity of innovation in the public sector: a workgroup-level
analysis of related factors and outcomes”, Public Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 392-416.
Totterdill, P. and Exton, R. (2014), “Defining workplace innovation”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 12-16.
Ulijn, J. and Fayolle, A. (2004), “Towards cooperation between European start-ups: the position of the
French, Dutch and German entrepreneurial and innovative engineer”, Innovation,
Entrepreneurship and Culture: The Interaction between Technology, Progress and Economic
Growth, pp. 204-232.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G.M. and Kidwell, R. (2011), “Corporate ethical values, group
creativity, job satisfaction and turnover intention: the impact of work context on work
response”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 353-372.
Weston, R. and Paul, A.G.J. (2006), “A brief guide to structural equation modeling”, The Counseling
Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 719-751.
Williamson, J.M., Lounsbury, J.W. and Han, L.D. (2013), “Key personality traits of engineers for
innovation and technology development”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 157-168.
Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K. and Stewart, R.A. (2017a), “Exploring leadership styles for
innovation: an exploratory factor analysis”, Engineering Management in Production and
Services, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K. and Stewart, R.A. (2017b), “Workplace innovation: exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation”, Management and Production
Engineering Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 57-68.
Wright, B.E. and Pandey, S.K. (2009), “Transformational leadership in the public sector: does structure Pathways to
matter?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
workplace
Wynen, J., Verhoest, K., Ongaro, E., v. and Thiel, S. (2014), “Innovation-oriented culture in the public
sector: do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation?”, Public Management
innovation
Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 45-66.
Yang, K. and Kassekert, A. (2010), “Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction:
evidence from federal agencies”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 413-436. 913
Yates, A. (2001), “The future of professional engineers in the public service”, Prometheus, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 55-73.
Yates, A. (2012), “The challenges for agencies in maintaining in-house engineering professional staff”,
in Engineer, Australia (Ed.) Government as an Informed Buyer: How the Public Sector Can Most
Effectively Procure Engineering-Intensive Products and Services, Barton, A.C.T., pp. 70-79.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Yuan, F. and Woodman, R.W. (2010), “Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance
and image outcome expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 323-342.
Yukl, G.A. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Zacher, H. and Rosing, K. (2015), “Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 54-68.
Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G.Y., Yang, Z. and Zhou, N. (2005), “Developing strategic orientation in China:
antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1049-1058.

Appendix. Survey items

Leadership for innovation (LFI)

Transformational leadership (LFI1)
Your immediate supervisor’s action motivates people.
Your immediate supervisor’s action encourages innovation.
Your immediate supervisor’s action develops people.
Your immediate supervisor’s action achieves results.
Your immediate supervisor’s action cultivates productive working relationships.
My supervisor is open to new ideas.

Consideration leadership (LFI2)

My supervisor communicates effectively regarding business risks that impact my workgroup.
My supervisor is accepting of people from diverse backgrounds.
My supervisor works effectively with people from diverse backgrounds.
My supervisor is committed to workplace safety.
My supervisor treats people with respect.

Ambidextrous culture for innovation (ACI)

Innovative culture (ACI1)
My agency prioritises developing new ideas and encourages making suggestions.
Most managers are people who encourage innovation.
Internal communication within my agency is effective.
IJOA Change is managed well in my agency.
26,5 My agency emphasises innovation to find new solutions to problems.
My workplace provides access to effective learning and development.

Performance-oriented culture (ACI2)

Most managers are people who make sure procedures are rigorously followed.
914 My agency emphasises delivery, thus completing tasks is important.
Most managers are people who ensure their team delivers.
My agency prioritises achieving goals and completion to a high standard.
My agency emphasises procedure, thus delivering standardised services is important.

Workplace innovation (WIT)

Individual creativity (WIT1)
I am able to explore new ideas about how I do my job.
I believe I would be supported if I tried a new idea, even if it may not work.
I have the time to explore new ideas about how I do my job.

Team innovation (WIT2)

In my work group, I feel comfortable to voice a different opinion.
People in my work group analyse their work to look for ways of doing a better job.
Employees believe that improving the quality of our work is our responsibility.
The people in my work group work together to improve the service we provide.

Career satisfaction (CSF)

Meaningful work (CSF1)
My job gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.
I enjoy the work in my current job.
My job gives me opportunities to use my skills.

Reward and recognition (CSF2)

I am fairly remunerated for the work that I do.
I am satisfied with the opportunities for career progression in my agency.
I am satisfied with my non-monetary employment conditions.
I am satisfied with the recognition for doing a good job.
Employees feel they are valued for their contribution.

Corresponding author
Rodney Anthony Stewart can be contacted at: r.stewart@griffith.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com